Shriniwas S/O Narayan Batulwar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7209 Bom

                                                                                        
    C.R.A. No.79/2016                                1




                                                               
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.79 OF 2016




                                                              
    Applicant                :      Shriniwas s/o Narayan Batulwar,
                                    Aged 34 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
                                    R/o Mahureshwar, Shukrawar Peth, Washim, 




                                                
                                    Tah. & Dist. Washim.

                                  ig-- Versus --

    Non-Applicant            :      State of Maharashtra,
                                    Through Collector, Washim,
                                
                                    Tah. & Dist. Washim.
                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                          Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the Applicant
                         Shri K.R. Lule, Advocate for the Non-Applicant
      


                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
   



                              C ORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                              DATE      :  14
                                                 DECEMBER, 2016.
                                              th





    ORAL JUDGMENT :- 

Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the

parties.

02] The impugned order, on its perusal, is clearly seen to be based

upon the merits of the appeal and not on the merits of the delay condonation

application. In proceedings arising out of an application filed under Section 5

of the Limitation Act, what is required to be considered by the Court is,

whether or not any sufficient cause or any reasonable excuse has been shown

by the applicant in order to enable the Court to exercise its discretion suitably

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Unfortunately, the impugned order

ignores this basic consideration and delves into the merits of the case. The

learned District Judge has also not taken care to formulate any point for

determination while disposing of the Section 5 application. The formulation

of such a point is necessary when such an application is taken up for final

disposal by a District Court. Additionally, the learned District Judge has not

considered at all as to whether the application filed for condonation of delay

discloses any sufficient cause or not.

03] For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that this matter

needs fresh consideration by the learned District Judge. The civil revision

application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :

i. The application is allowed.

ii. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

iii. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge for its

fresh consideration by him in accordance with law and also

keeping in view the observations made in this order.

iv. The parties to appear before the learned District Judge on 10 th

January, 2017.

v. There is no order as to costs.

JUDGE *sdw